The Marine Corps has issued a statement regarding its involvement in the recent actions in Egypt and Libya. ..

In Libya, the Corps says that no Marines are stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli or the Consulate in Benghazi. Security in Libya, such as it existed, apparently was provided by contractors. The Rules of Engagement under which they operated are unclear.

Decisions regarding whether to have Marines at particular U.S. embassies and consulates fall to the State Department, according to the Marine Corps statement. In the case of Tripoli, the Corps says there were discussions with the State Department about establishing a detachment at the embasssy in Tripoli, a new embassy, some time in the next five years. That may seem like a long time, but for bureaucrats it is often considered ASAP.

Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya..

Mrs. Clinton one of the 1960 radicals who hated anything in uniform....carried that with her into the White House....shows and has shown utter distant for anything pertaining to law enforcement. The spots on this woman have not changed. The deaths of these warriors and patriots lay at her New Way feet.

The whole problem here was overconfidence and negligence, of course, plus our institutional incompatibilities with whats needed to get the job done in these other cultures.

T.E. Lawrence, for one, had the knowledge and foresight and leeway to create his own personally loyal Bedouin security detail, which he selected and recruited himself using his knowledge of clan loyalties. This sort of thing squares the circle of scary foreigners (Marines, Blackwater) providing security but annoying the locals vs unreliable and compromised local officials. That sort of thing has been bureaucratized out of the options available to our modern Lawrences.

And for that matter our representation in these places needs to be less bureaucratic and more proconsular. The British back in the day knew their business. Their people were usually given blanket authority to make deals, bribe officials, subsidize tribes, and even recruit private armies.

Security concerns aside, how can someone have a US embassy without Marines? As a teenager I spent hours in the US embassy in Madrid, just looking/admiring/staring at the Marines on guard duty. To me they represented all that America stood for, and they were great looking to boot! An embassy without Marines? No way!

7
posted on 09/16/2012 12:39:48 PM PDT
by Former Fetus
(Saved by grace through faith)

My Rifle: The Creed of a US Marine by Major General William H. Rupertus (USMC, Ret.)(written following the attack on Pearl Harbor)

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

Note: a former Marine asked a local radio station host (in my area) to read this Saturday morning. He said they recited this creed every morning while they were training.

10
posted on 09/16/2012 1:01:40 PM PDT
by MissMagnolia
(Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))

In order to be a good muslim, one has to either try to kill infidels, or support those who do. Support can include lying to infidels to get them to accept some muslims as “friendly”.

Any Westerner who deals with muslims is a fool who will be forced to submit to them.

The British empire started it’s collapse at least as far back as the 1800’s, since by WWI it had become a bunch of arrogant pacifists who thought that by selling out they could preserve the facade of an empire. Under the guise of representative government, they reduced their monarch to simply an actor playing a role. And the so-called representative government, like in the U.S. is today, became entirely sold out to modernist secular humanism, money and populism, i.e., bread and circuses.

They’ve simply been saying that they’re still relevant for so long that they’ve allowed themselves to actually believe it. Since WWI they have relied on the U.S. to replace the military power that they used to provide for themselves.

Many of their citizens - and most all of their politicians - have the gall to downplay their reliance on the U.S. for defence.

The U.K. has been a mere shadow of it’s former self for a century, a joke of a has-been power, that turned it’s back on the God of the Bible a long time ago.

This is why islam is so close to assuming complete control of the U.K.

Ironically, the biggest allies that the U.S. might possibly retain in fighting the coming world war will probably will be Germany in Europe, and, of course, in the Pacific region it will be Japan.

IMHO, I see only two ways to avoid this hypothetical war. One is by submitting to the new world order statist/communist intelligentsia (which includes both the Democrat and Republican political establishments). The other is by a Christian Reformation here inside America, which will cause them to be identified and separated out and excluded from leadership, and replaced by truthful leaders. These truthful leaders will get government off our backs, realign our legal system with Biblical principles and thereby cause an enormous economic prosperity. At the same time, being truly desirous of defending the nation and having clarity of principle, they will truly lead in that responsibility.

Obama and Hillary left those people as sitting ducks and ripe for an attack. Such gross negligence is without equal and should be considered criminal.

A blood stained pillar gives a hint at what happened to those poor people. Someone attempted to cling to the column for dear life, and as you can see from the bloody trail, was pried away and taken to their brutal death by the murderers.

I want a State Department that cares more if my sensibilities are offended not some barbarian middle eastern muzzies. It seems Foggy Bottom needs a boot up their @@@ so they remember who the h@ll they serve.

Should there be a WWIII, the best way to end it and put our Christian -principles forward is, do to the arab lands as we did to Germany and Japan. To heck with collateral damage, we didn’t care before and helped both countries back on their feet. And helped them with their own kinds of democray, not Republics as we have. We leveled both countries, we are capable of doing the same now. BUT we have elected representatives with NO COURAGE. Their only thought is their next election and how much power they can collect for themselves, while our young men and women put their lives on the line to try and protect our shores from the enemies of our American beliefs.

The British did an excellent job of working with bad (or good, depending on your point of view) Muslims. And they did it very cheaply, for the most part. Their last hurrah was their defense of Oman with special forces and mercenaries.

The Muslim problem is one that requires active management. Consider it pest control. And the people who deal with them certainly can’t be fools. There are special talents required. And they need to be on the spot.

As for what happened to the British, and all the other colonial powers, and for that matter, even God - WWI.

The thing we keep forgetting is the same thing Clint Eastwood said. Hillary Clinton works for me and you. She’s not some kind of privileged queen. I pay her salary. She’s proven herself to be a negligent incompetent and she needs to be dismissed. This kind of incompetence is dangerous. We have four dead Americans including a United States Ambassador who represented us. How many more Americans are going to have to die before this Queen of Incompetence is dismissed?

21
posted on 09/16/2012 2:35:28 PM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

That “identified and separated “ part is something I’ve been saying for years. It’s the reason we need the “Big List” wherein all the traitors to our constitution are plainly listed for all to see. If they get heavy handed they can be dealt with poste haste.

It does indeed seem to me that we’ve endured more than enough “sneak attacks” as with Pearl Harbor, to justify a declaration of war on the countries harboring the hoodlums-——then let fly with the brick makers. They like the 12th century so much let’s keep them in it permanently.

You realize that the 50% of American voters who are sold on Obama could not care less about Libya or the Middle East or American diplomacy generally. They do not want war because they don’t want to go. Besides, spending money on war means less for handouts. And they do want handouts. Plenty of them.

Before WWII the muslim brotherhood, circa 1920’s, there was no significant active caliphate restoration planning.

There was no danger of muslims moving into Britain in the 1800’s and subverting the entire nation to submit to islam.

Christianity was still too prevalent; as an example, note the popularity of Charles Spurgeon during that time.

There also was no technology so advanced during the 1800’s that whole cities could be destroyed by a small band of marauders. There was obviously no jet airline travel, so dealing with islamic countries was akin to dealing with barberic natives that had no hope of attacking the home country.

The British militarily in their colonies during the 1800’s simply “carried on”, this management style you speak of was simple and effective during that time in those places, as there was no massive homeland threat as there is today to Western nations.

I agree that the British control of colonies was quite effective in it’s day. IMHO, India benefits from this today in at least one way, as it’s citizens, paired with an excellent educational system, produce great results.

In the post WWI negotiations, the European nations and America made the colossal mistake of even giving muslim leaders a seat at the table. Most of the ruling intelligentsia types who were the brainiacs behind the negotiations for the victorious powers reasoned that rolling off their colonies into new “nations” would allow the transacting of commerce with little puppet leaders put in place. The empires, one can only surmise, thought that they could have the benefit of commerce without the cost, complexity, aggravation and general unsavoriness of having this colonial domination.

The post WWI negotiations, in their birthing of new nations, were way off in their thinking that “people are basically the same all over the world”, and the vastly underestimated the complexity of international relations that would be realized with such enormous political changes happening so quickly. Not to mention that German agents had also used the same tactic they did in WWII, of generating anti-British sentiment in the middle east as a way of diverting British war resources to the colonies. In the post WWI era of the 1920’s the muslim brotherhood sprang up, and anti-Western sentiment has been growing ever since.

No Muslim states got much of a say at all in the Versailles negotiations. That was a huge disappointment to people like Lawrence.

There was no significant decolonization post-WWI, other than in Europe. The non-European possessions of the losers were absorbed by the winners, through direct or indirect rule.

Post-WWI British management was just as effective as before. People like J.B. Glubb and Gertrude Bell kept semi-independent states in order and reasonably quiet. They even managed to suppress the original Al Quaeda, the Ikhwan.

The real problem with WWI was not in the details of colonial administration or colonial breakup, but in the loss of faith by Europeans in God, in their culture, and in their institutions. This cancer took a while to have an effect in the colonial empires. You can also blame this loss of faith for the dreadful post-WWII European immigration and assimilation policies.

The NYT is spinning it as a Libyan rescue mission with the searchers delighted that the Ambassador is still “alive” and praising Allah. Then they call for a car to take him to the ambulance. Do we have an independent source for the Arabic translation?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.